Extract ASCII and UTF-16 strings from binary files to reveal readable text, credentials, or clues during penetration tests and CTF challenges.
Extract ASCII and UTF-16 strings from a binary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| min_len | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the two encodings scanned, which is genuine behavioral information, but says nothing about whether the target is read-only, what the returned strings look like (offsets? encoding labels?), how truncation by limit is signalled, or what happens on a non-binary or unreadable path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a narrow utility tool. The brevity is efficient, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, the definition is too thin for a three-parameter file-inspection tool. An agent cannot reliably predict the output shape or how limit and min_len shape the result without calling the tool and observing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented in the structured fields. The description hints that the target is a binary file, but it never mentions limit, min_len, their defaults (300 and 4), or the units involved, leaving the agent to guess at pagination and filtering behaviour.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('ASCII and UTF-16 strings') applied to a binary, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like pentest_ctf_decode or pentest_ctf_xor. It does not differentiate from the more overlapping pentest_ctf_binwalk or pentest_ctf_file_info, which also inspect binary files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the neighbouring binwalk, file_info, or exif tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as engagement scope or file access. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.